Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move at Talk:Nasheed#Requested move 11 January 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nasheed#Requested move 11 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The necessity of distinguishing between the new wave, new romantic, and new pop genres

[edit]

None of these terms are synonymous. None of them were used at the same time, to describe the same things. Yet Wiki now treats them as largely interchangeable, with artists who were described as 'new romantic', 'new pop', 'synthpop', or even just 'pop' at the time getting the 'new wave' label. 'New wave', as used by most critics during the 1970s and 80s (irrespective of nationality), essentially referred to more commercialised versions of punk from the late 70s. It was largely perceived of as a thing of the past during the 1980s by most important critics, as is attested to on Wiki's own page. Among the public, at least in the UK, it was not widely used during the 80s either. The new wave page quotes a respected English journalist calling the formation of Duran Duran the 'death of new wave', yet Wikipedia now lists new wave among the band's primary genres and describes much of their music as such. The same genre mislabels are used for hundreds of other (mostly British) pop artists active during the 80s, none of whom would ever have been described as such by contemporaries. It is, I am afraid, utterly all without sense.

'New wave', the 'new romantics', and the 'new pop' were each and all distinct phenomena. All three were in one form or another reactions to the punk moment of 1976/77, but they were not the same. 'New wave' came first - it was artists like The Jam, Elvis Costello, XTC, Joe Jackson, The Specials, etc. It did include some synthesiser groups like Tubeway Army and the Buggles, but they were not the main component. It was always a broad term, but it had a short life. It went largely out of currency after 1980. This is supported by sources, quoted on both the Wiki pages for synthpop and new wave. The indiscriminate usage of 'new wave' for seemingly any and all 80s mainstream British chartpop would have struck contemporaries, as it strikes me, as utterly bizarre and not a little offensive. Artists who were described as new romantic, new pop, synthpop, or pop have been retroactively turned into 'new wave', by order of Wikipedia. As I've said, these genres were all quite distinct from new wave, and I'd be happy to hear others' definitions, but I think Wikipedia actually does a pretty good job defining each genre on its own page. You'll notice I call them genres, even though Wikipedia never includes New Romantic on genre lists. If we want to call it a fashion sensibility or cultural movement instead of a music genre, fine. But it was certainly used, at the time, as a way to define and categorise music, much like other genres. Currently, Wikipedia seems to consider 'Madchester' and 'mod revival' as 'genres', which like New Romantic were cultural/fashion movements as much as music forms (though in fact, New Romantic was actually far less vague and had a more easily definable sound than either those terms - that sound, of course, being synthpop). In any case, it's wholly incorrect to conflate the New Romantics with 'New Wave'. For now, just a few sources on that, because it's getting late:

The page British pop music (clearly written from a knowledgeable British perspective) correctly categorises 'punk and new wave' as genres of the 1970s, whilst 'New Romantic and the Second British Invasion' are defined as belonging to the 1979-1985 period. Similarly, the page British rock music has one section for 'Proto-punk, punk and new wave', and an entirely separate section for 'Electronic rock in the early 1980s' (under which are the subsections 'Synth rock', 'New Romantics', and 'The second British invasion').

Here's a 5 page piece from Rolling Stone magazine on the New Romantics (specifically Visage) from 1981 - no mention of 'new wave' (besides 'punk is dead'). Plenty of talk, though, about Bowie and electro-disco.

And here's another bit from Rolling Stone in 1981 (reprinted in another paper) about Japan, who Wikipedia defines as 'an English new wave band': 'Pity the natty Anglo-dandies of Japan. Too late for the glam-rock movement, reviled in the New Wave era, these veteran fops - led by David "The Most Beautiful Man in the World" Sylvian - would seem made to order for the age of the clothes-conscious New Romantic bands.'

'Reviled in the New Wave era,' but 'an English new wave band' in 2024 according to Wikipedia. Just like Duran Duran, I suppose. Jinglyjangle (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you, more directly and concisely, outline what changes you want to make, and what reliable sources directly support said changes? Sergecross73 msg me 13:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. But this is a major issue that requires a lot of (seemingly American) users to challenge their preconceived notions of what 'New wave' music is, so I'm not anticipating easy agreement. What I'd ask for is that these users keep an open mind and examine the views of full-length monographs and respected music critics, which in an encyclopedic work ought to be preferred over popular misconceptions. A 'reliable source' reporting on a Spandau Ballet reunion concert from 2015 might offhandedly refer to them as 'new-wave', but their word ought not to be taken over professional music journalists who were published during the 80s and have since published detailed retrospective works. It is quite obviously the case that an NPR journalist in the twenty-first century will not be as acquainted with the band and their cultural relevance as, say, Simon Reynolds or David Stubbs. As Smash-Hits78 detailed here, there are hundreds of artists and releases mistagged as 'new wave', supported by the flimsiest of offhanded remarks in throwaway retrospective online articles (many of which are not even credited to specific writers, like the Spandau Ballet article). Though an individual mislabeled article might not seem such a problem on its own, taken together the quantity of music miscastegorised as 'new wave' creates a narrative across Wikipedia which plainly contradicts the actual history as presented in monographs like Dave Rimmer's Like Punk Never Happened and Dylan Jones's Sweet Dreams, as well as Wikipedia's own articles on New Wave, New Romantic, and New Pop, which are better sourced than most pages for individual music artists/releases.
In short, then, I'd mostly like to see what Smash-Hits78 already proposed; namely, that Wikipedia use better sources in infoboxes when dealing with oft-confused genres like New Wave and New Pop, remove weakly supported references to 'New wave' across the encyclopedia, and consider adding 'New Romantic' as an infobox genre to reduce mislabeling. Whatever our disagreements along the way, I trust we all want music articles on Wikipedia to be as accurate, specific, and reliable as we can manage.
Also pinging Ceoil, Humbledaisy, and TangoTizerWolfstone for comment; as knowledgeable contributors with similar interests, your input would be most welcome :) Jinglyjangle (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend you read WP:VNT and WP:RGW. We've got to go by what reliable sources can verify. I've got no problems with additions you can add with reliable sources, but your comments focus a little too much on your personal opinions on reliable sources being wrong, which is not a valid stance, especially when dealing with things like genre, which are both subjective and constantly evolving over time. Sergecross73 msg me 16:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jinglyjangle's basic point, which I read as terms are too readily applied on wiki to bands/albums based on poor journalism by writers contributing to other wise reliable publications. This most apparent, as detailed above, in the confusion on the development of English music after the twin shock waves of Punk and Krakwerk. That said, categorisation is not something i really follow or worry about, maybe a bit when late 70s bands are taged as Goth, but really have nothing actionable to raise. Ceoil (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, and you're probably right not to care. I just find the lack of quality control and plain disregard for the historical record to be most irritating, especially since Wikipedia itself is cited so often by other sources. And just as irritating is the refusal of moderators to engage honestly or productively in discussions of this sort. Instead of attempting to address or acknowledge what has shown to be a problem of undue weight given to poor journalism, a moderator will default to defending the status quo, pointing to site policies inclined to inaction whilst pretending neutrality. It doesn't have to be this way, of course; I've read archived music genre discussions where users have genuinely engaged regarding the applicability of differing sources and opinions, acknowledging if the site has given undue weight to views with less reliable backing or a weaker historical basis. I thus hold out hope that critical thinking is still possible - even on Wikipedia. Jinglyjangle (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's inevitable that the definition of genres will change over time and that reliable sources will disagree. To say we should just favour one journalist over another because they are "acquainted with the band and their cultural relevance" is just WP:OR. I think this is a case where we should tell both sides of the story. Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the replies above, that it's just pure WP:OR. He says new wave, New Romantic and new pop are all very different things, but they're not, they are all related. The only difference is that new wave is an actual true music genre, whereas New Romantic and new pop were temporary subcultural movements, and not genres. Note the past tense "were", but with new wave, "is", this is because music genres never die out and cease to exist. Certain genres can decline in popularity, but are always there and new music of any genre can be produced / performed at any given time. Jinglyjangle is claiming that new wave was only a temporary music movement from c. 1976 to 1982, but a lot of sources say the actual new wave era lasted till the mid-'80s, around 1984/85; yes, the new wave era did span through those specific years, but as a music genre, has never died out. So many songs from the second half of the '80s to the present day were/are still being produced and are correctly classed as new wave and that's why these many albums / songs on Wikipedia are reliably sourced as such. Songs that have the new wave sound (new wave also being an umbrella term) include related genres such as synth-pop, post-punk, gothic rock, dark wave, 2-tone, sophisti-pop, late '70s to '80s power pop / alternative rock etc. So are you Jinglyjangle now going to remove all the reliable sources that describe these songs / albums new wave from their respective articles just because these were produced and released after the new wave era? Again, new wave is a music genre that will exist forever; music genres don't just magically disappear and cease to exist for all eternity. Removing reliably sourced content to suit your British-centric biased opinions and original research goes against Wikipedia rules and you've been told before to please quit your disruptive editing and edit warring as you may not only be blocked indefinitely from the Synth-pop article as you are now, but from Wikipedia as a whole. This is just a friendly reminder, please do not feel offended. Also, Wikipedia caters to a worldwide audience; if bands and artists / songs were called new wave in the United States at the time, and we have those sources, you cannot just disagree and violate the rules, just because as you claim, the United Kingdom "stopped using the term new wave in the 1980s." And "new pop" and "New Romantic" should not be included as infobox genres, simply because they are not genres. "New Romantic" has been added many times in the past to infoboxes but has always been reverted. Like what Sergecross73 said, your sourced additions of "new pop" and other content is fine, but do not remove new wave and its sources just because other sources say otherwise. Hiddenstranger (talk) 07:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any confidence that a blanket solution exists for this problem. The sources differ on these issues for many reasons including contrary factions at the start, changing viewpoints over time, and sheer laziness in English composition. I think we must live with overlapping confusion and tell the reader that a particular genre topic has been represented in two or three or four different manners, attributing who said what when. If modern musicologists have attempted to sort it out, those would be the most authoritative and definitive sources. Definitely not magazine and newspaper music reviews from the 1980s, etc. Binksternet (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the considerate reply. I understand how it's to difficult to sort with so many contradictory and conflicting sources, but I still think that if Wikipedia were to rely on better journalistic sources (contemporary or not) for genre categorisation there would be far less confusion around (as well as far less music labeled as) 'New Wave'. See my most recent comment here. Jinglyjangle (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still feel that you are trying to fix the world rather than report objectively on the world. I'm sticking to my previous assessment: we should tell the readers what the sources say, giving attribution where necessary. We should NOT dismiss or diminish contradictory sources. Binksternet (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After encountering the latest bizarre miscategorisation of a British group as supposedly New Wave, I checked out the article's talk page to see if anyone else had noted this phenomenon on Wikipedia, and how widespread it is. Unsurprisingly they had. Engagement at that discussion has brought me here. I fully agree with Jinglyjangle's comments above.

That "Wikipedia caters to a worldwide audience" does not mean that recent/American usage of terms (if that's what it is) prevails over what are, in large part, concerns about a strong divergence in WP:ENGVAR/MOS:TIES in regard to this terminology. That should be respected, not dismissed as "British-centric biased opinions".

VNT indeed but it seems plain that many nominally RS, in this sphere, are no such thing. Overhauling how we weight such sources may be the key to this.

Don't get me started about "sophistipop"... Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, this boils down to how, mostly, British and American sources have defined these terms for 45+ years. Not sure how "recent" this is--I would imagine that the Valley Girl soundtrack has been labeled in RS "new wave" hundreds of times over the past 41 years. I just finished I Want You Around: The Ramones and the Making of Rock ‘n’ Roll High School, which confirms the story that Seymour Stein in part adopted/promoted "new wave", stolen from the French New Wave, because he thought "punk" was hurting sales. The Ramones, on the other hand, considered themselves, unironically, a pop band in the Bay City Rollers mold, for years, so... A good article on new wave, as Binksternet noted, would explain the differences between British and American conceptions, without resorting to "many people wrongly think that..."-type stuff. WP is dependent on what reliable sources say ... which is why we have a list of one-hit wonders in the United States that is full of artists who had multiple hits. I like the Dave Rimmer book, but it's not the only work that can be looked to. Caro7200 (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difference in application is so stark that perhaps there should be some means of distinguishing what the intention of the term is in a given context. Not sure if separate articles to link to is a bit too far ("New wave music (UK application)"/"New wave music (US application)"?); otherwise links to subsections of the one article? And the world isn't just the US and the UK. How/is the term applied elsewhere? Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think having different pages is a reasonable idea, but good luck getting an admin to even take you seriously. A few years back someone proposed something similar on the talk page for British pop music, but predictably, unless you raise a stink about things (which I've had to do, unfortunately) nobody will notice (and when they do, they'll be as dismissive as we have seen here).
I think our only hope is to get more British Wikipedians involved in this conversation, which I tried to do by tagging a few upthread (a couple were involved in a discussion on the Duran page), but since I have roughly zero connections or influence on this site there's very little I can do except argue and hope somebody decides to listen (still waiting). Jinglyjangle (talk) 14:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is (or would be) considered canvassing. If you're trying to bring more participants to a discussion, it must be done neutrally, not targeted only towards people you believe will support your argument. Sergecross73 msg me 14:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, on the sophistipop thing, the singer for the Blow Monkeys (also tagged as new wave, because of course) actually said in an interview that he's tried to get it removed from Wikipedia but they won't let him! Good to know it's not just us :-)
By the way, out of curiosity, what group was it whose 'New Wave' tag made you decide to visit the talk page? I was thinking perhaps the most absurd example I've ever seen (endless choices, but if I could only pick one) is When in Rome. Apparently, AllMusic says so, and since they're a 'reliable source', that's that. I wish it were possible for Wikipedians to admit that 'generally reliable' does not mean 'always reliable all the time', or even for some new policy to be implemented (the New Wave rule?) requiring a higher standard of sources for heavily disputed content that differs by region. Another thing I noticed, by the by, is that a single editor, Hiddenstranger, seems to be largely responsible for much of what is mislabeled as new wave, thanks to a truly prolific amount of edits over many years. The site administrators might choose to be concerned by this, but naturally they have more important things to be troubled with like dismissing concerns over regional and ageist bias. Jinglyjangle (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a thing I've noticed - you love to complain about how things are done, but don't offer any constructive path forward. Perhaps that's why you don't make the progress you desire? Rather than the pity party, have some self-reflection. None of your arguments involve any sort of policy or guideline. You don't respond to anyone who bring up concerns about policy or guidelines. We've talked for a week now, and I still don't understand your proposed approach. What is it? "Let JingleJangle write whatever they want with only the sources they approve of?" Sergecross73 msg me 15:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"..largely responsible for much of what is mislabeled as new wave, thanks to a truly prolific amount of edits over many years." - Totally untrue. Know the truth before you speculate. Do not be judgmental. The majority of bands & artists on here labeled as new wave were already labeled and sourced as such before I even joined Wikipedia. I did add new wave to a few more, but with reliable sources. Also, leaving personal attacks on my Talk page will only make things worse for you. So please be civil. And because of your tone and choice of words, your style of editing, and disregard for certain policies and rules, that is the work of a disruptive editor. You're also involved in a lot of edit and genre warring. Please listen to @Sergecross73. And again, new wave is a music genre. It appears that what you want is to label bands and artists "new pop" (not a real genre but a term applied to a short-lived music movement), and label only a handful of certain bands and artists / albums and songs as new wave, but only if they were active / released during the new wave era. But even for artists active during the new wave era, whose pages are well sourced and you disagree that they're new wave, that's when the edit warring starts. Please realize this kind of behavior is not allowed on here. ~ Hiddenstranger (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is, though, the 'American' view seems to have been more what people anecdotally thought at the time than what reliable sources recorded. Based on all I've seen and read (and this is attested to on wiki's own page, with sources), critics made a distinction between 'New Wave' (referring to artists like the Boomtown Rats circa 1977-1980) and 'New Music' (the industry term for British pop like Culture Club and Duran Duran). Much of the US public, evidently, did not - and it is members of that public, I suspect, who have written the online sources now cited all over Wikipedia. Stephen Thomas Erlewine, for example, who was a child during the 80s, probably watched MTV and had a different (or less informed, one might say) view of what 'New Wave' meant than Robert Christgau. Truly not trying to be backwardly ageist here, but do we really think people who were children at the time had as developed an understanding of pop music developments as professional music journalists? Should their views be far more represented across Wikipedia (and here's where the real ageism comes in) since they, being several generations younger, had the privilege to compile online databases like AllMusic, write for the websites of online publications, and edit Wikipedia in far greater numbers than their elders? Should British people of a certain age - of the same generation as Erlewine, in fact - be left thinking they come from a parallel universe when they read that Kajagoogoo were a 'British new wave band'? Jinglyjangle (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of that is relevant. Writer's age or what you speculate they were watching when they were young, none of these things are the sorts of things that Wikipedia considers valid points in determining source reliability. It's getting rather troubling you felt it appropriate to bring up any of that at all. None of that can be reconciled with Wikipedia policy. Sergecross73 msg me 13:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for separate articles, all we need is a variety of reliable sources to discuss it at its various angles. This isn't some sort of isolated incident, this stuff happens in music all the time. Genre is a subjective thing, and its interpretation changes over time. Back when Fall Out Boy and Panic at the Disco blew up in the mid-2000s, all the "traditionalists" complained that they "weren't real emo". Now the label is commonplace. When nu metal blew up in the late 1990s, all the old heavy metal fans complained that it "wasn't real metal". Johnny Cash fans don't think Luke Bryan is "real country". There's currently a movement of pop punk happening that doesn't sound much like its start up in the 1990s. It goes on and on. We're all free to have our own opinions and interpretations on it personally, but as long as we're acting as editors on Wikipedia, we need to WP:STICKTOSOURCEs, which means documenting varying viewpoints, not erasing the ones that don't meet our preferences. Sergecross73 msg me 19:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure why STICKTOSOURCES etc. is being raised as it’s quality/reliability thereof that is being disputed; clearly valid to raise.
This not about comparison of the use of a category for one (new) act that has also been applied to another (older) one. It’s about the meaning of the term for the very same act, to different constituencies. “New wave” means something to both and if that is significantly different for one of them, we misinform that constituency. That that constituency is the one where the act originates should give it particular consideration. It is not reasonable to just expect Brits to see the term being applied and a) know the American use of the term and b) that that is what is being applied. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because, if not you, the OP is proposing removing sources that are established reliable sources simply because it doesn't conform with their preferred sources and their preconceived notions about the genre. This isn't a "Brits versus Murica" type situation. No one appears against including the properly sourced British viewpoint. They're against the erasure of differing viewpoints from reliable sources. That part is the problem. Sergecross73 msg me 21:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
II must have missed it that proposition. ""Brits versus Murica" is rather an innovative way of summarising "It is not reasonable to just expect Brits to see the term being applied and a) know the American use of the term and b) that that is what is being applied". Unless you are saying that is reasonable?
Do we have a note in every applicable article that Brits wouldn't regard the act as being new wave? Asterisk every mention with a disclaimer? Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I'm not really understanding what you're saying anymore. My point is simply that it should all be documented if that's what reliable sources are saying, even if it's inconsistent with your own experience. Same goes to anyone, regardless of where they're from. Sergecross73 msg me 22:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it may not have been clear I was posing a question as it was initially framed as a statement and the second time it may have appeared rhetorical, so I'll modify it: "(Is it) reasonable (particularly in articles with strong ties to the UK) to just expect Brits to see the term (new wave) being applied and a) know the (significantly different) American use of the term and b) that that is what is being applied"? Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems reasonable to me. As Serge pointed out, it's common with just about every genre, and the wikilink is there if the reader should be confused.Doctorhawkes (talk) 11:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per my point above, Serge's example is not at all analagous. The user isn't aware that they are "confused" as the term is clear to them, but different to what is intended. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To say it's "not analogous" is hairsplitting. My point is that different interpretations of musical genre is commonplace, and yet we get by just fine. Across many genre, there's people, like some of the participants here, who try to paint genre as a hard, objective thing, and anyone who disagrees is wrong. That stance, on Wikipedia, borders too close to WP:RGW. We're not here to "set the record straight", we're simply here to document it as reliable sources document it. If reliable sources have differing viewpoints, so do we. Sergecross73 msg me 14:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether subject A fits into category X is a completely different matter to term X means one thing in one place, something quite different in another.
I have posed a question three times, there has been no response any of those times but you have instead made several "points" that are neither contentious to me nor pertinent to my question. I’ll try again.
It's broadly in the realms of List of words having different meanings in American and British English. I'm not objecting to it being noted that, in one part of the world, term X is applied to an act but, particularly if the article has strong ties to another part of the world where that term would mean something distinct, it is reasonable that this should be highlighted, very, very clearly. People who are familiar with the term to mean something else entirely can not be expected to click on a link to it to disabuse themselves of a misapprehension that they don’t know they hold. If our purpose is to inform, we are actively misinforming these people, if unintentionally and through neglect, due to their, valid but different, understanding of the term. That is far from “just fine”. Surely we’re not happy to leave this unaddressed?
Are we? RSVP. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am. It's silly to suggest this is a dichotomy. The meaning in the English press has changed considerably. Greil Marcus may have an entirely different meaning to a reviewer in Billboard. There are many others countries with reviews. A push to clarify the subtleties of every use "new wave" is bound to cause more confusion than comprehension. Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've said multiple times that I'm fully supportive of added context for various interpretations of genre supported by reliable sources. How does that not answer your question? But it's not like that requires an second article or something. What I'm against is this "There's only one correct interpretation of genre and it's mine and I'm deleting anything contrary" stuff that seems to be alluded to by some. Sergecross73 msg me 00:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop attributing to me this view that I have not only not expressed but have disavowed. Me, I'm against this... car theft stuff.
Let's break it down into parts and we can deal with whether this applies to the term new wave separately and, if so, by what means the matter may be resolved. Do you accept that, when a term (any term) is used to mean substantially different things in different places, there is a strong likelihood that the use of said term, unqualified, in an article with strong ties to a place, will lead those from that place to have a different understanding to that intended? That can only really be answered yes or no, so if you can give me that we'll have moved a bit. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. To be clear, I'm not accusing you of anything. This is not a one on one conversation about you. It's a group conversation, started by someone else, about how the community should approach something. So, if I am making comments about stances you're not taking, there's always the possibility that, you know, I'm not referring to you when I say them.
The rest of your comment seems to ask...if it's conceptually possible to have different interpretations on terminology? Not sure why you're asking questions like that, or how you could realistically expect someone to answer "no" to that... Sergecross73 msg me 15:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. No, I am not asking questions like that. It is not about the possibility of there being different interpretations but the consequences when there are (or were there to be, if that still needs resolving for this example, but first things first). Specifically when a term is used in a different sense to that that would be employed in the English-speaking nation with the manifestly strongest ties. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe there are "consequences" in the context of musical genre, no. Sergecross73 msg me 20:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've started a step too far for me. I don't believe that the term means substantially different things in different places. I believe each reviewer, regardless of their origin, has a slightly different meaning for the term "new wave". That's the case with all genres.Doctorhawkes (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sergecross73, there is no consequence when someone sees a term (and we're not at this stage talking about this term or this genre) that they have every reasonable expectation conveys one meaning, when in fact it has another? This is inconsequential, for a work of reference, seriously? We just have to accept that some people come here and leave with a mistaken impression? Doctorhawkes, too far? How much further back could I take it than to ("first things first") talk about the consequence of a term having an unexpected meaning to a constituency. If we can agree on that baby step, we can discuss whether it applies to this particular term and then steps that could be taken to avoid the state of affairs. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disclaimer might be a good idea, actually. Currently very peeved by this in the Culture Club article: 'Culture Club's music combines British new wave and American soul and pop.' Going to publish another edit and hope it stays (I feel like I'm bending over backwards to be reasonable and still not being met halfway). Jinglyjangle (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I came across this topic on the talk page for new wave and I'd like to share my thoughts. As a background, I acknowledge that I have a history of reverting edits related to 17th century history, which I regret, but since then I've become really interested in old music and have read a lot of Wikipedia pages as well as music books and articles. I wasn't around in the 80s or even the 90s, but based on what I've read and reading what people have said in this thread it seems like the British users have made stronger points which haven't really been answered, and I say that as an American. From all the reading I've done about music history and conversations I've had with older people, a mix of British and American, it does seem to suggest that the way new wave was used and understood in the country where a lot of it came from (UK) and by most critics in America is in line with what Jinglyjangle and Mutt Lunker have been arguing and that the other way is basically a misunderstanding.
Growing up in America in the 21st century, I was exposed to the other idea of new wave, where it seems like among some people the idea has been passed down that new wave was basically a synonym for British synth-pop. I asked my parents, both American, what new wave means to them, and my dad, who is a few years older, said his main associations were with Elvis Costello, Talking Heads, and Blondie, while my mom just said "stuff with synthesizers". So among Americans even there seems to be a divide. But based on the reading I've done it seems like what my dad said is right, and my mom is wrong. The new wave page talks about how the main American critics used new wave in basically the same way it was used in Britain, while it was only among some Americans that the terminology drifted pretty far away. I think this probably happened because a lot of common people who were only casual music fans didn't know what the term new wave referred to and misapplied it. I told my mom that I think her definition is wrong and I explained to her the actual meaning of new wave, and she said I'm probably right and that she just didn't pay that much attention back then, which supports my hypothesis.
Anyway, I can't accept the idea that by calling stuff new wave that wasn't, we can make it so. It seems like if we accept that then we've basically given up on truth. If I say the sky's purple, even if the New York Times says so, it doesn't make it true. I think we have to recognize that a lot of the modern American sources have got it wrong because, like me, they were brought up in a culture where the mistaken view has sort of been the norm among people younger than my dad and people who weren't music critics in the 70s/80s. But since it's mistaken, since those UK bands weren't actually part of the new wave movement as it really and truly was a thing that existed in Britain, I don't think we can categorize them that way without being dishonest. I noticed that the page for New Romantic contains this line: "Other aspiring bands of the era including ABC, Depeche Mode, the Human League, Soft Cell, Simple Minds, Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark and Talk Talk have all at some point been inaccurately associated with the New Romantic movement." If we're willing to recognize that sources have gotten it wrong in labeling the New Romantics, I think we should do the same and recognize that a lot of bands have been inaccurately labeled as new wave. I have gone out and looked and found sources online for each one of those listed bands describing them as New Romantic, from reliable sources, yet Wikipedia has decided to preemptively rule them out due to those being recognized as inaccurate associations based on the real music history, so I think we have to do the same for all the stuff which has been incorrectly labeled as new wave.
Also anecdotally, I'm currently visiting London and I've been to lots of record shops, and I've noticed that new wave is never categorized with synth-pop or 80s music. All the record stores I've been to have had either punk/new wave sections or post-punk/new wave sections and then a separate area for "80s electro", "synth pop" or something similar. All the groups like Duran Duran etc. are kept in the latter category. And I've also made some edits to the new wave page to try to add on to jinglyjangle's edits, mostly by looking at American sources I've found online but also some British ones. I'll keep looking at the related pages like new pop, New Romantic etc. to see if there are more improvements I can make, fixing bias and adding new sources and that sort of thing, but I think something should also be done with all the pages for individual artists. Because now if you read the pages for new wave and new pop, they basically support everything jinglyjangle and mutt have been saying and they use a lot more sources than most of the artist pages, which usually only have a few short articles at best for sourced genres. So now you get stuff that doesn't make any sense, like Duran Duran being new wave on their own page, but the "death of new wave" on the actual genre page. I think if we're going to recognize new wave as a real thing, which it was, we've got to be honest with our readers by admitting when sources have got it wrong, like we do on the New Romantic page. We can't just say "this is new wave", presenting it as undisputed fact, just because one article said so once, because sometimes they'll get things wrong or miss out on important subtleties and distinctions, or the reporter might just not know any better. We should credit people who have done the research and work, we should explain new pop or New Romantic to people who don't know what they are, instead of hiding that information from them and assuming they wouldn’t understand. If my mom thought Duran Duran were new wave before, she should be able to find out better by visiting Wikipedia, instead of having her wrong impression confirmed. If we don't give people all the information, which means having accurate genre boxes, we'll also be lying to people who weren't there, like me, and who want to know the real history of how those British music movements developed one after the other, in the clubs and the discotheques and the pages of the music press. If I wasn't as obsessive about this period of British music as I am I'd probably be misinformed myself, just from looking at Wikipedia infoboxes, but I've dug stuff up and read music history books as well as old magazines and things. We shouldn't force people who want to know the truth to do that, we should summarize the information accurately in artist infoboxes as well as on genre pages.
We can present different points of view, but that doesn't mean not keeping it real by having info in the infoboxes that just ain't so. Just because something is minimally verifiable and can be included, should it be? Verifiability yes, but truth still matters as this essay says, and relevancy matters, and context, and author POV and so forth. Even more important, people like my mom and me before I delved deeper will get the wrong idea looking at artist pages, cause with infoboxes people just assume that whatever is in there is true, and lots of people won't click through onto the genre page and read about what new wave actually is. This is supported by a video I saw about an edit war over the Austro-Hungarian flag where one side had lots of books, articles etc. showing the country's naval ensign as its national flag, but guess what, those verifiable sources turned out to all be wrong, yet the idea spread all over the Internet and further into real life cause of the infobox. And the wrong flag was actually based on a historical misconception, where lots of foreign sources used the naval ensign to represent all of Austria-Hungary because they didn't differentiate between the different imperial flags and just chose one to cover them all, while in Austria-Hungary each flag was used more specifically for different regions. To be honest I think we've got something very similar going on here with new wave, new pop, and New Romantic all being collapsed into one by foreign sources who didn't properly distinguish between them, while in Britain they were all separate categories that described different things. My point is Wikipedians recognized the error in the sources and now war infoboxes show the flag that was actually used most often in Austria, rather than the one that foreigners mistakenly used as representation. I know I'm going off here on what might seem like a tangent, but I actually think it's a very similar situation and I'd ask everyone in this thread to please go watch the video and consider what was done in that case versus what we're doing here.
Thanks. ComeniustheGreat (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Striking comments made by sockpuppet account. Binksternet (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:VNT and WP:RGW. Sergecross73 msg me 21:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read both, but I think my points still stand and you didn't respond to anything I said. Why can we recognize verifiable sources as having been wrong about the New Romantics and the Austro-Hungarian flag, but not this? Did you watch the video?
Basically, I don't think Wikipedia should include things that seem based on misconceptions, which is how all this seems to me. We shouldn't include things that make people assume they're fact, when they're easily disputable at the very least if not just false. I like the idea of showing different points of view, but that's not really possible with an infobox cause everybody just assumes everything in there is true, they shouldn't, but they do. The example of the Austro-Hungarian flag shows that, and also how tons of verifiable sources can be wrong because foreign observers didn't really understand how things were conceived in the country of origin.
Honestly, I don't know why I'm wasting my time still arguing here, it's clear to me now that you have no interest whatsoever in listening to what anyone has to say. Someone who's British shouldn't have to come to these pages and be so upset that we're mangling their history. And they have every right to be upset, they themselves might have been punks, New Romantics, goths or whatever, and what this seems like, what it is, is a bunch of people who haven't a clue invalidating their entire lived experience and telling them that no, actually, we know better than you, we don't care what the truth is, it's all the same to us so we don't care, this is how Wikipedia is and it's not going to change. The reason I'm upset, why it matters to me even though I'm not British and really have no stake in any of this, is because this is the music I love and live for nevertheless and seeing you be so dismissive, so utterly careless about the history and treating those with an interest in preserving it the way you've done is not only incredibly unkind, it's terrible practice for an encyclopedia with so much reach and influence. I'm a historian in training, I believe in the value of historical documentation and evidence, of looking at sources with a critical eye, and this all seems totally alien here. This isn't a place of learning, of discussion, of open-mindedness, it's a place of meanness, arbitrary power, and utter thoughtlessness. I'm not naturally cynical and I think most people on Wikipedia probably come with good intentions, but I've now realized there's nothing I can do that would make any difference whatsoever. When my book about British indiepop of the mid-80s sees the light of day, I just hope I'll be able to do the past and the people whose lives are entangled with it some of the justice that has been denied here. ComeniustheGreat (talk) 00:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, we "have no interest whatsoever in listening" to someone's personal opinions, totally lacking support in reliable sources. If you want to have leverage here, you must cite reliable sources and describe how you think they should be summarized in the best manner. Binksternet (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No amount of rambling monologues are going to ever gain a consensus if they aren't rooted in any policy. (And even if they could, they don't present an actionable path for moving forward anyway.) Slow down and learn how Wikipedia works so you can give a policy-based stance on the matter. You're just going to burn yourself out if you stick with the wall-of-text anecdotes and edit warring like you're doing now. They won't get you anywhere. Sergecross73 msg me 02:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anecdotal stuff is useless here. Argue the sources if you wish to exert any influence at all. Binksternet (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Late to the party here, I know, but as a fellow Brit who grew up in this era, I share Jinglyjangle and Mutt Lunker's frustrations at what was termed "new wave" in the US... in the UK, that term was very much reserved for acts of an edgier, more experimental disposition (e.g. Elvis Costello, or Joy Division)... if you had described Culture Club or Howard Jones as "new wave" you would have been laughed out of the country, and I would be very surprised if I could find a single mention of new wave being used for these acts in the UK music press of the time. That said, I have to go along with Sergecross73 and Binksternet here, much as it pains me personally – we don't really have any choice but to use the descriptions we can find in RS... we can call them both "pop" and "new wave" if there are sources for it (and I'm sure there are) and it'll mean different things on either side of the Atlantic. Richard3120 (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Socking update

[edit]

There was really no consensus in favor of what they were trying to do (or even an actionable path forward even if they did) but for record keeping's sake, per here, virtually every participant on one side of the argument, outside of Matt Lunker, has been indeffed for sock puppetry. Sergecross73 msg me 18:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm entirely unfamiliar with rest of the socks listed at the investigation linked above, or their edit history but I'm unclear from the investigation as to how Jinglyjangle and Janglyguitars has been linked to ComeniustheGreat. Jinglyjangle stated on their user page that they are a locked out Janglyguitars but has the former been linked to CtG by shared IP, or the like? I'd be astonished if the varyingly-coherent extended rambles of CtG above came from the same hand. The style, effectiveness and level of concision are poles apart. I only skimmed the TLDR screeds but their contribution looks more likely to undermine the credibility of anyone supposedly on the same side.
I am distinctly dissatisfied with being lumped in with a supposed "one side of the argument" in what has been a multi-faceted debate. On which subject, can you clarify as to whether you are claiming that @Richard3120: is a sock, also being on the side of the argument that the classifications are ludicrous, or that they are on the other side ("your side"?), because they regretfully agree you should be acceded to? There are several other contributors to the debate who at least partially disagreee with you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was not alluding to Richard. Because, you know, he's not currently blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 01:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point. So cut the "sides" nonsense. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've entirely missed the point of my comment. I was just trying to say multiple participants, arguing the same points, were blocked as socks, and I was trying to allude to it not being you. Yeesh, I make an effort to make it clear that I'm not accusing you of something, and you've somehow taken offense to that. It certainly wasn't meant as a shot at you. Why would it? The discussion stalled out weeks ago even without the sockpuppetry. Sergecross73 msg me 01:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that intent, much appreciated, though the characterisation of the debate as a simple two-sided matter was unhelpfully wide of the mark, making the intent unclear. There are many points that I would not endorse in the sock posts above, some I'd actively oppose and the implied association with the views was and is my point, not any implication that I was another sock in the drawer. As a side note, interesting for one sock incarnation to go so far to not look like a DUCK by making their points so poorly and cumbersomely. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, I'd normally handle it differently, but as the discussion above shows, most of my questions related to "What are people trying to accomplish here?" were met with rambling monologues and indirect answers, so it was rather difficult to summarize the situation. Sergecross73 msg me 16:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help requested

[edit]

I would be happy to have help with:

Move Kritika (disambiguation) to Kritika

[edit]

There is a discussion here about whether to move Kritika (disambiguation) to Kritika. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Post Human: Next Gen Genres

[edit]

Hey, I had some input on many of the song pages for this album. There's a talk page here relating to the discussion. Thought that I'd like to hear input on the matter. TheCrew65 (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where should this go?

[edit]

I read an article today on the BBC news website about a manuscript shortly to go on display at Gloucester Cathedral, which records a song (words and music) sung in Barbados by enslaved people in the late 18th century.

A descriptive note on the original manuscript adds: "...A Single Negro, (while at Work with the rest of the Gang), leads the Song, and the others join in Chorus at the end of every verse - (Generally in a Minor Key - suppose E with minor 3d.)"

I understand so little about music that I do not know if what the manuscript describes is Field holler, Call and Response or Work Song, but I do think it may be appropriate to one of them. I'm flagging it in case someone musical can put it in the correct place.

https://www.bbc.co.put/news/articles/cjqegjg5dy9o

The manuscript is also listed by UNESCO:

media.unesco.org/sites/default/files/webform/mow001/barbados_uk_song_eng_0.pdf RLamb (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Purged member list

[edit]

I removed the names of all members who have not edited Wikipedia in the last year. Many of these users have not edited in more than 10 years.

My hope in cleaning this list is supporting people in finding collaborators. d:Wikidata:WikiProject Music has users who actively curate genres, and I think the future of this kind of content creation will include adapting Wikipedia fact-checking policies to Wikidata's structured data format.

removed users

Bluerasberry (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking care of that. On that note, I've added myself to the list. I mediate (and adminish) enough in the subject area that I may as well list myself on it too. Sergecross73 msg me 19:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Hip hop music § Requested move 23 November 2024

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Hip hop music § Requested move 23 November 2024. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upgrading MOS:ALBUM to official guideline

[edit]

I dropped this notice at the main WikiProject Music talk as well, but thought some eyes here might be different and appreciate the notice. I have proposed making MOS:ALBUM an official guideline. WP:ALBUMS has already been notified.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has been moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_advice#Upgrade_MOS:ALBUM_to_an_official_guideline.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music/Music_genres_task_force&oldid=1269769212"